A LIKELY SCENARIO DURING A FUTURE WINTER IN NEW ENGLAND

If a cold snap occurred, and if wind and solar were minimal, and if gas supply (after being politically restricted) were diverted from power plants to residential and commercial buildings for space heating (because of very cold weather), and if duel-fuel gas plants were to have insufficient gas and fuel oil supply, and if a plant or transmission outage occurred, and if electricity supply via tie lines with Canada and New York State were kept at present levels, then rolling black-outs likely would occur, especially if various nuclear and coal plants had previously been shutdown.

 

Well, what do you know? Such a scenario actually happened, and is likely to happen more often, if the “recommendations” of 100% RE aficionados, who likely never analyzed, never designed, and never operated any energy system, would actually be implemented.

 

Cold Weather Operations December 24, 2017 – January 8, 2018; ISO-NE Report

 

The ISO-NE report, prepared by energy systems analysts with decades of experience, describes in great detail the operation of the grid during the cold weather period, with insufficient gas and fuel oil supply, and minimal solar most of the time, and near-zero wind on 5 days, plus an outage of a major transmission line. It was a miracle rolling blackouts were avoided. Millions of New Englanders may not be so lucky next time.

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/01/20180112_col...

http://www.vnews.com/Column-OilSavesGrid-ma-14865099

https://atomicinsights.com/performance-new-england-power-grid-extre...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2018/01/07/what-happens-w...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2018/01/03/governor-andr...

Wind, Solar, Hydro, Bio and Waste

 

100% RE aficionados claim wind and solar, and hydro + bio + waste, and energy storage, and demand management, and energy efficiency, and heat pumps and the batteries of electric vehicles will provide electricity, 24/7/365, at a minimum of 99.97% reliability, plus their envisioned system will be “distributed” everywhere, and it will have lower electricity costs per kWh, because “it does not use fuel”.

 

For many years, independent energy systems analysts have warned new Englanders higher electric rates would happen with increased build-outs of heavily-subsidized wind and solar, but legislators, etc., pooh-poohed them. Now, with utilities asking for 5%/y rate increases year after year, New Englanders are finallybeginning to learn that the 100% RE siren song and dance is, in fact, a load of bull manure.

 

NOTE: If 100% RE aficionados were correct, why do countries in the EU, with high levels of RE, such as Germany and Denmark,, also have high household electric rates? The commercial/industrial rates are kept low and much less burdened with taxes, fees and surcharges, for competitive reasons. Why would that be different in New England? See graph of household electric rates versus the sum of installed wind and solar in the euanmearns URL.

 

http://euanmearns.com/an-update-on-the-energiewende/

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

RE Development in New England 2000 - 2017

 

New England has been subsidizing renewable electricity since at least 2000. It took many billions of federal and state subsidies and 17 years for renewables to become 8.9% of the NE grid load.

 

Wind and solar cannot be relied on, because they both can be near zero anytime during December, January and February, as proven by minute-by-minute ISO-NE grid data, over several years. Here are the NE data for 2017, per ISO-NE. This data excludes “before the meter” solar, such as residential rooftop.

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

 

Table 1	GWh	% of NE generation	% of NE grid load
Total NE Generation	102,534	100.00%	84.70%
Gas	49,198	48.00%	40.60%
Nuclear	31,538	30.80%	26.10%
Renewables	10,830	10.60%	8.90%
- Wind	3,280	3.20%	2.70%
- Refuse	3,165	3.10%	2.60%
- Wood	3,014	2.90%	2.50%
- Solar	880	0.90%	0.70%
- Landfill Gas	447	0.40%	0.40%
- Methane	44	0.04%	0.04%
Steam	0	0.00%	0.00%
Hydro	8,572	8.40%	7.10%
Coal	1,684	1.60%	1.40%
Oil	696	0.70%	0.60%
Other	14	0.01%	0.01%
Net Flow over External Ties	20,243		16.70%
- Québec	14,401
- New Brunswick	4,306
- New York	1,536
Pumping Load	-1,716		-1.40%
Net Energy for Load	121,061		100.00%

Projected NE Solar Production, Capacity, Capital and Electricity Cost

 

ISO-NE Capacity and Production Estimates: ISO-NE made a study of the installed PV solar, before and after the meter, for the 2017 - 2027 period. Data for the year 2017 is actual results, and for 2027 is estimated.

 

In 2017, solar, after the meter, was 880 GWh. See table 1.

In 2017, solar, before the meter, likely was 2390.5/2865.8 x 2381 = 1986 GWh. See tables 2 and 3.

Total solar was 880 + 2381 = 3261 GWh in 2017.

 

In 2018, solar, after the meter, likely would be 2865.8/2390.5 x 880 = 1055 GWh

In 2027, solar, after the meter, likely would be 5832.9/2390.5 x 880 = 2147 GWh. See table 2.

 

In 2018, total solar likely would be 3436/{(121061- 880) + (1055 after the meter + 2381, before the meter from table 3} x 100 = 2.78% of total NE load.

 

In 2027, total solar likely would be 7431/{(121061-880) + (2147, after the meter + 5284, before the meter from table 3} x 100 = 5.82% of total NE load.

 

NOTE: In 2018, Vermont

- Solar capacity, before and after the meter, was estimated at 288.7 MW AC

- Solar production was estimated at 345 GWh, equivalent to345 GWh/6000 GWh = 5.75% of total Vermont electricity supply. See table 2 and 3.

 

Table 2 shows the estimated solar capacity, before and after the meter, for 2018 and 2027. See page 10 of URL.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/03/a03-2018-pv-...

Table 2/year	End 2017	End 2018	End 2027
Units	MW ac	MW ac	MW ac
CT	365.6	454.2	1037.3
MA	1602.3	1899.0	3608.9
ME	33.5	43.7	131.4
NH	69.7	83.5	202.7
RI	62.2	96.7	370.2
VT	257.2	288.7	482.5
Total	2390.5	2865.8	5832.9

 

Table 3 shows the estimated solar production, before and after the meter, for 2018 and 2027. See page 18 of URL.

 

Table 3/year	2018	2018	2018	2027	2027	2027	Increase
	ATM	BTM	Total	ATM	BTM	Total	%
Units	GWH	GWH	GWh	GWh	GWh	GWh
CT			543			1342	247
MA			2299			4621	201
ME			50			164	328
NH			97			247	255
RI			102			272	267
VT			345			584	169
Total	1055	2381	3436	2147	5284	7431	216

Capital Cost: The capital cost of the projected solar would be about (5832.9 - 2390.5) x $3.5 million/MW + 10% for transmission = $13.2 billion

Electricity Cost:The electricity cost for competitively bid, large-scale, ground-mounted systems likely would be about 12 c/kWh (heavily subsidized), the price at which a utility would buy the electricity. This absurdly expensive electricity, which would be about 50% higher without the subsidies, and even higher without cost shifting to ratepayers and taxpayers, such as for:

 

1) The filling-in, peaking and balancing, due to wind and solar variability/intermittency;

2) Grid-related, such as grid extensions and augmentations to connect and deal with wind and solar;

3) Utility-scale energy storage, which is presently provided by the world’s fuel supply system.

The utility would receive high value, solar renewable energy credits, RECs, which it likely would sell. It would replace them with low value RECs to still be able to claim, “we are green”; a smoke and mirrors charade. For comparison, New England midday wholesale prices have averaged about 7 c/kWh since about 2009.

Net-Metered Residential Rooftop Solar: Any net-metered, residential, rooftop solar system would produce electricity at about 15.1 c/kWh (heavily subsidized), about 21.6 c/kWh (unsubsidized). Current residential electric rates are about 18 c/kWh, including all taxes, fees and surcharges.

 

The portion of production not used by the owner is bought by the utility at about 18 c/kWh. At current residential electric rates of about 18 c/kWh, such trading is a wash, but as electric rates increase in future years, the trading would become a positive for the owner.

 

Owners often disregard the return on solar investment they could have made had they bought AT&T stock that pays a 5%/y dividend. If that item were added to spreadsheets, they would not look very good at all. See comparison of Plan A and Plan B in this article.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-residentia...

 

Here are Some URLs for Information

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/03/a03-2018-pv-...

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-oversold-by-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/evs-and-plug-in-hybrids...

Projected NE Wind Production, Capacity, Capital and Electricity Cost

 

ISO-NE data shows about 1400 MW of wind turbines installed in New England at end 2017.

In 2017 production was 3280 GWh (See table 1), or about 3280/{121061 + 1986, before the meter} x 100 = 2.67% of the NE electricity supply.

Electricity Production by 2035?: About 8600 MW of wind has been proposed, of which about 4430 MW in Maine and about 4063 MW offshore near Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The wind systems are located at least 20 miles from the Massachusetts mainland requiring expensive subsea connections. See map on page VIII of URL.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/08/f35/2016%20Offshore...

If all 8600 MW were implemented, the:

Additional onshore production would be 4430 x 8766 x 0.30 = 11650 GWh/y

Additional offshore production would be 4063 x 8766 x 0.40 = 14247 GWh/y

Total production would be 25897 GWh.

That would be about 28897/3280 = 7.9 times greater than in 2017, or about 7.9 x 2.67% = 21.1% of total NE electricity supply.

Capital Cost: The capital cost would be about $36.2 billion for turbines and transmission systems.

 

Capacity		CF	Electricity	Turbine	Grid	Turbines	Grid	Total
MW	h/y		GWh	$million/MW		$million	$million	$million
4430	8766	0.3	11650	2.8	0.150	12404	1861	14265
4063	8766	0.4	14247	4.5	0.200	18284	3657	21940
			25897					36205
			3280
			7.9

Electricity Cost: The electricity cost for competitively bid, large-scale, offshore wind systems likely would be about 16 - 18 c/kWh (heavily subsidized), the price at which a utility would buy the electricity. This absurdly expensive electricity, which would be about 50% more expensive without subsidies, would be averaged onto the utility’s contracted electricity mix.  

 

The utility would receive high value, offshore wind renewable energy credits, RECs, which it likely would sell. It would replace them with low value RECs to still be able to claim, “we are green”; a smoke and mirrors charade. See Appendix.

Future Wind and Solar and Serving the NE Load

Based on ISO-NE projections (with inputs from states), wind would be about 21.1%, in about 2035 and solar about 5.82%, in about 2027. Such a large presence of variable intermittent electricity on the NE grid would require peaking, filling-in and balancing, 24/7/365, mostly by a large capacity of gas turbine plants*, as is presently the case.

Because the sum of wind and solar is near-zero many hours of the year, especially during the December - February period (as proven by minute-by-minute NE grid operating data for at least the past 10 years), these gas turbine plants*, along with some minor sources, such as refuse, wood, landfill gas, methane, and hydro (NE + imports), and some battery and other storage, would have to be READY, STAFFED AND FUELED TO SERVE THE ENTIRE NE LOAD, 24/7/365, at a minimum reliability of 99.97%. Any electricity passing through storage would have up to a 20% loss on an AC-to-AC basis, which has to be made up with additional generation. See Appendix 1.

*

- Assuming oil, coal and nuclear plants would have been forced into retirement, a much larger capacity of gas turbine plants would be needed to replace their electricity (remember wind and solar could be near-zero), and the gas turbine plants would need to be READY, STAFFED AND FUELED.

- Additional gas lines would be needed to provide increased quantity of LOW-COST, DOMESTIC natural gas, or an increased supply of VERY EXPENSIVE (at least 3x domestic prices), IMPORTED liquefied natural gas, LNG.

- RE proponents and legislatures in Massachusetts and New York State are obstructing any new gas lines to provide increased DOMESTIC natural gas, because that would be “building out fossil infrastructure”, so they want to “temporarily” use (likely for several decades) increased IMPORTED LNG that is at least 3x more expensive. Are these people nuts, subversive or what? Do they have any sense of economics? See Appendix.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-very-expensive-offsho...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/02/02272018_pr_...

 

The EU and Wind and Solar

The EU imports about 80% of its energy, which is costly. The EU imports gas and oil from Russia, the Middle East, etc. The EU has to export goods and services to pay for its energy imports. The EU strategy is to increase the cost of electricity in the US by pushing the US into expensive offshore wind.

 

The EU has installed about 13000 MW of offshore wind versus the US about 30 MW. Massachusetts mandating to have 1600 MW of offshore wind by 2027, would be very profitable for EU financial and wind turbine companies, plus it would hamstring the Northeast with more expensive electricity; two birds with one stone. The US not staying in the COP21 (Paris), means the EU looses its leverage to push the US into expensive electricity. See Appendix.

APPENDIX 1

Wind and Solar Conditions in New England: New England has highly variable weather and low-medium quality wind and solar conditions. See NREL wind map and NREL solar map.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/100m_wind/awstwspd100onoff3-1.jpg

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01...

 

Wind:

- Wind electricity is zero about 30% of the hours of the year (it takes a wind speed of about 7 mph to start the rotors)

- It is minimal most early mornings and most late afternoons/early evenings (peak demand hours), especially during summer

- About 60% is generated at night, when demand is much less than during the late afternoons/early evenings

- About 60% is generated in winter.

- During winter, the best wind month is up to 2.5 times the worst summer month

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.262) of any US region, except the US South. See URL.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112

 

Solar:

- Solar electricity is strictly a midday affair.

- It is zero about 65% of the hours of the year, mostly at night.

- It is minimal early mornings and late afternoons/early evenings

- It is minimal much of the winter months

- It is minimal for several days with snow and ice on most of the panels.

- It varies with variable cloudiness, which would excessively disturb distribution grids with many solar systems, as happens in southern California and southern Germany on a daily basis.

- During summer, the best solar month is up to 4 times the worst winter month; that ratio is 6 in Germany.

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.145, under ideal conditions) of any region in the US, except some parts of the US Northwest.

 

Wind Plus Solar:

 - Wind plus solar production could be near zero, if a multi-day wind lull were to occur, with snow and ice on most of the panels, as frequently happens during December, January and February.

 

If we were to rely on wind and solar for most of our electricity, massive energy storage systems (GWh-scale in case of Vermont) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods, and seasonal variations. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-l...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/seasonal-pumped-hydro-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electricity-storage-to-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pumped-storage-hydro-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

APPENDIX 2

New England Wholesale Electricity Prices: New England wholesale prices have averaged about 5 c/kWh for steady, 24/7/365 electricity since about 2008, primarily due to:

 

1) Natural gas electricity; 50% of NE generation; low-cost (5 c/kWh), low-CO2 emitting, no particulates, domestic fuel.

2) Nuclear electricity; 26% of NE generation; low-cost (5 c/kWh), minimal-CO2 emitting, no particulates, domestic fuel.

3) NE hydro electricity; 8.4% of generation, low-cost (5 c/kWh), minimal-CO2 emitting, no particulates, domestic.

4) Tie line electricity; 16.7% of NE grid load; low-cost (5.7 c/kWh), minimal-CO2 emitting, no particulates, imported.

 

APPENDIX 3

High Electricity Prices for RE in New England: The highly subsidized wholesale prices of wind and solar paid by utilities to producers are much higher than in the rest of the US, because of New England’s mediocre wind and solar conditions.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/subsidized-solar-system...

 

Wind and Solar Far From Competitive with Fossil in New England: The Conservation Law Foundation claims renewables are competitive with fossil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a list of NE wholesale prices and Power Purchase Agreement, PPA, prices.

 

NE field-mounted solar is 12 c/kWh; competitively bid

NE rooftop solar is 18 c/kWh, net-metered; GMP adds costs of 3.813 c/kWh, for a total of 21.813 c/kWh

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

NE wind offshore until recently about 18 c/kWh

NE wind ridgeline is at least 9 c/kWh

DOMESTIC pipeline gas is 5 c/kWh

Russian and Middle East imported LNG is at least 9 c/kWh

NE nuclear is 4.5 c/kWh

NE hydro is 4 c/kWh; about 10 c/kWh, if Standard Offer in Vermont.

Hydro-Quebec imported hydro is 6 - 7 c/kWh; GMP paid 5.549 c/kWh in 2016, under a recent 20-y contract.

NE annual average wholesale price about 5 c/kWh, unchanged since 2009, courtesy of low-cost gas and nuclear.

 

NOTE: Vineyard Wind, 800 MW, fifteen miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, using 8 or 10 MW turbines, 750 ft tall.

Phase 1 on line in 2021, electricity offered at an average of 8.9 c/kWh over 20 years

Phase 2 offered at an average of 7.9 c/kWh over 20 years

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/13/vineyard-wind-offer...

https://www.boem.gov/What-Does-an-Offshore-Wind-Energy-Facility-Loo...

 

NOTE: The NE grid is divided in regions, each with Local Market Prices, LMPs, which vary from 2.5 - 3.5 c/kWh from 10 pm to about 6 pm; slowly increase to about 6 - 7 c/kWh around noon time, when solar is maximal; are about 7 - 8 c/kWh in late afternoon/early evening (peak demand hours), when solar is minimal. Unusual circumstances, such as power plant or transmission line outages, can cause LMPs to increase to 20 - 40 c/kWh, and even higher when such events occur during peak demand hours.

 

NOTE: The above prices would be about 50% higher without the subsidies and even higher without cost shifting. See Appendix.

 

NOTE: Here is an ISO-NE graph, which shows for very few hours during a 13-y period were wholesale prices higher than 6 c/kWh. Those prices are low because of low-cost gas, low-cost nuclear and low-cost hydro. The last four peaks were due to:

 

- Pipeline constraints, aggravated by the misguided recalcitrance of pro-RE Governors of NY and MA

- Pre-mature closings of coal and nuclear plants

- Lack of more robust connections to nearby grids, such as New York and Canada. See URLs.

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/markets/

http://truenorthreports.com/rolling-blackouts-are-probably-coming-t...

APPENDIX 4

Negotiated Offshore Electricity Cost:

1) The negotiated PPA for the $290 million (plus connection to shore by the utility), 30-MW, 600-ft tall, Block Island Wind project calls for 24.4 c/kWh the first year, increasing at 3.5% per year for 20 years, or 48.6 c/kWh, in the 20th year. This absurdly expensive electricity, which would be about 50% more expensive without subsidies, would be averaged onto the utility’s contracted electricity mix. It is located just 3.1 miles south of Block Island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_Island_Wind_Farm

 

2) The negotiated PPA for the $2.6 billion, 468-MW, 600-ft tall, Cape Wind project calls for 18.7 c/kWh the first year, increasing at 3.5% per year for 20 years, or 37.2 c/kWh, in the 20th year. This absurdly expensive electricity, which would be about 50% more expensive without subsidies, would be averaged onto the utility’s contracted electricity mix. Fortunately, it was cancelled, because it was located just a few miles from Hyannis Port, MA.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-01/cape-wind-develo... 

APPENDIX 5

Cost Shifting is the Name of the Game: Here is a list of the costs that were shifted, i.e., notcharged to wind and solar owners, which make wind and solar appear to bemuch less costly, than in reality.

 

Those costs, as c/kWh, could be quantified, but it is politically convenient to charge them to: 1) ratepayers via rate schedules (taxes, fees and surcharges), 2) taxpayers, and 3) federal and state debts.

 

1) The various forms of inertia (presently provided by gas, coal, oil, nuclear, bio and hydro plants).

2) The filling-in, peaking and balancing by traditional generators due to wind and solar variability/intermittency.

3) Any battery systems to stabilize distribution grids with many solar systems.

4) Any measures to deal with DUCK curves, such as utility-scale storage and demand management

5) Grid-related, such as grid extensions and augmentations to connect and deal with wind and solar. See note.

6) Utility-scale electricity storage (presently provided by the world’s fuel supply system).

https://www.neon-energie.de/Hirth-2013-Market-Value-Renewables-Sola...

 

Those items are separatefrom the high levels of subsidies, which also make wind and solar appear to bemuch less costly, than in reality. See appendix.

 

All that enables RE aficionados to endlessly proclaim: “Wind and solar are competitive with fossil and nuclear”.

 

NOTE: For example, to bring wind electricity from the Panhandle in west Texas to population centers in east Texas, $7 billion of transmission was built. The entire cost was “socialized”, i.e., a surcharge on residential electric bills.

NOTE: Often the grid connection of offshore wind systems is not included in the capital cost estimates, i.e., it is provided by the utilities that buy the electricity under PPAs. The cost is “socialized”, i.e., a surcharge on residential electric bills.

APPENDIX 6

Massachusetts and Offshore Wind Systems: Massachusetts has a new energy law. The key provision in the 37-page law is a mandate for utilities to solicit long-term contracts with offshore wind system owners to bring at least 1,600 MW (nameplate capacity) into the state by June 2027.

The turnkey capital cost of such wind turbine plants, plus transmission to shore, plus onshore grid modifications, would be at least $9 billion, and the electricity cost would be at least 16 - 18 c/kWh. See URL.

In addition, utilities would also be required to solicit contracts for up to 1,200 additional MW of clean energy generation that could include a mix of hydro, onshore wind and solar.

NOTE: New England wholesale prices have averaged about 5 c/kWh for steady, 24/7/365 electricity since about 2008, primarily due to:

 

- Natural gas electricity; 50% of NE generation, low-cost (5 c/kWh), low-CO2 emitting, clean (no particulates), domestic fuel

- Nuclear electricity; 26% of NE generation, low-cost (5 c/kWh), low-CO2 emitting, clean (no particulates), domestic fuel

 

Construction would require huge sea-going tugs, cranes and other specialized vessels to assemble those 600-ft tall wind turbines. Europe has perfected that equipment, but the US does not even have it. Europe offshore wind capacity is 12,900 MW, versus the US 30 MW at end 2017.

 

European companies, such as Vestas and DONG of Denmark, Siemens of Germany, etc., will make big profits. Wall Street banks will make loans, and financial managers will collect fees for managing the tax shelters for the multi-millionaire investors. New England ratepayers will pay for the outrageously high cost of electricity.

 

Just another way for EU, etc., to hamstring the New England and US economy into higher cost structures and make them less competitive, all under the false flag of fighting global warming, and saving the world. See URLs.

 

The US has plenty of domestic low-cost energy. It does not need to build expensive offshore wind systems.

The EU imports most of its energy. It HAS to build expensive offshore wind systems.

The EU likely thinks, if the US does not follow the EU into high-cost renewable energy, the US would have a competitive advantage, and attract energy-intensive businesses, which must be avoided at all costs.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/0...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-very-expensive-offsho...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-eu-and-internationa...

APPENDIX 7

Plant Closures and Economics and Politics 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-likely-scenario-durin...
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

 

Since 2010, California closed one nuclear plant (2,140 MW) and Germany closed 5 nuclear plants and 4 other reactors at currently operating plants (10,980 MW in total). Those closures were due to political pressures by RE aficionados, who also pressure to close “dirty” coal plants. 

 

Wind and solar owners are allowed to feed their heavily subsidized electricity into the grid regardless of whether it is needed or not, and, usually, they get paid at above wholesale feed-in tariff rates, or at above wholesale power purchase agreement, PPA, rates; a “no lose” deal for those owners, paid for by everyone else (subsidies, cost shifting, higher prices for goods and services).

 

However, nuclear and coal plant owners usually get paid at wholesale prices, which have been decreasing due to the combination of 1) increased, heavily subsidized wind and solar, and 2) increased generation with low cost gas. 

 

Remember, variable and intermittent wind and solar electricity cannot exist on any electric grid without the traditional, dispatchable, flexible, generators, primarily gas turbine plants, performing the peaking, filling-in and balancing. So it is only natural the owners of wind and solar plants and the owners of gas plants having political coalitions to promote their own agendas, which include the closures of coal and nuclear plants.

 

However, the US national security sector relies on the US electrical sector for 99% of its electricity. It is of vital importance for the US to have a large capacity of power plants, with large, onsite fuel storage, such as coal and nuclear plants, to ensure electricity service at a reliability of 99.97% or better, 24/7/365. Having just wind and solar, plus gas plants would greatly diminish the ensuring of that reliability.

APPENDIX 8

LNG Deliveries to Boston:The Christophe de Margerie, a RUSSIAN-OWNED icebreaking tanker named after the deceased former CEO of Total, motored into Isle de Grain, UK, on Dec. 28, according to market information provider ICIS. It unloaded LNG from the new Yamal gas/oil plant in Russia*.

 

The Gaselys, a FRENCH-OWNED tanker, arrived at Isle de Grain, UK.

It took on a cargo of commingledLNG, including LNG from the Christophe de Margerie.* 

It left the port on Jan. 7 

It arrived at the ENGIE terminal (owned by a FRENCH company) in Everett, Mass., three weeks later and delivered its payload.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076897

 

* A large LNG storage facility in the UK that receives gas from many sources, including the Netherlands, Norway, Middle East, Russia, etc.

 

* Shipments of Russian oil and gas are not subject to sanctions, but “US persons and those in the US” are prohibited from financing Novatek, the lead company in the construction of Yamal LNG. TOTAL, a French company, owns 20% of Yamal.

https://www.ft.com/content/56f19604-fd6d-11e7-a492-2c9be7f3120a

 

* Whereas, there is no way of knowing the Russian percentage, the US media quickly labeled it Russian LNG.

 

* Both LNG tankers were built in South Korea. It is amazing how much of the LNG infrastructure, and LNG storage plants, and LNG fleets are built and owned by foreigners! See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-eu-and-internationa...